THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY. 


SPEECH 

OP 

Hon.  GLEHNT  W.  SCOFIELD, 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA, 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  July  14,  1868. 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  UNION  REPUBLICAN  CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEE,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

Mr.  SCOFIELlI'  said : 

Mr.  Chairman — Which  way  are  we  moving?  Are  we,  as  some  persons  apprehend 
and  charge,  drifting  under  party  excitement  and  confusion,  through  misrule  and 
usurpation,  toward  despotic  government,  or  are  we,  though  in  the  midst  of  the  storm, 
but  in  spr.te  of  it,  still  holding  a  compass-line  inside  the  words  and  spirit  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  toward  a  more  perfect  development  of  republican  government? 

What  line  should  we  follow  ?  What  is  the  fundamental  theory  of  our  Government  ? 
The  great  men  who  laid  its  foundations  held  that  “  all  men  are  created  equal.”  They 
proclaimed  this  sentiment  in  the  face  of  a  world  heavily  oppressed  with  inequality, 
rank,  and  privilege.  They  spoke  and  fought  for  it.  Their  eloquence  and  valor 
established  it  upon  this  continent.  And  that,  I  understand,  is  or  ought  to  be  the 
recognized  theory  of  our  Government.  It  is  a  simple  formula,  a  few  words,  a  single 
principle,  one  idea;  but  upon  it  our  fathers  raised  the  fabric  of  the  new  Government. 
It  is  that  one  idea  which  makes  the  Government  great,  gradually  rising  above  all  other 
Powers  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  even  in  its  infancy  gming  liberty  and  protection  to 
forty  million  people  at  home,  and  reaching  out  a  helping  hand  to  the  oppressed  and 
humble  all  over  the  world. 

I  know  it  is  said  that  the  founders  of  the  Republic  did  not  really  mean  that  all 
men  are  created  equal,  because  they  did  not  at  first  and  at  once  confer  equal  rights 
upon  all.  It  was  impossible.  Existing  institutions,  vested  interests,  erroneous  con¬ 
victions,  and  deep  prejudices  stood  in  the  way.  They  went  as  far  as  they  could  then, 
as  far  as  the  public  sentiment  of  their  day  would  permit,  and  then  holding  to  and 
advocating  equal  rights  for  all  men  as  the  correct  Republican  theory,  awaited  the  fit 
times  and  opportunities  and  the  proper  development  of  the  public  sentiment  to  make 
that  theory  more  and  more  practical.  Upon  this  theory  they  founded  a  new  political 
party,  which  they  called  the  “  Republican  party.”  This  word  indicated  as  near  as  any 
one  word  in  the  language  could  the  commonality  of  all  governmental  rights.  They 
added  to  this  name  the  adjective  “  progressive,”  to  indicate  that  they  did  not  mean  to 
go  backward  nor  to  stand  still,  but  move  forward  on  this  theory  of  human  rights.  It 
was  not  many  years  before  this  “  progressive  Republican  party”  came  to  control  the 
country. 

See  what  was  done.  The  slave  trade  was  interdicted  and  the  trader  declared  a 
pirate.  In  many  of  the  States  slavery  was  abolished,  and  by  an  irrepealable  ordiuauoo 
all  the  territory  then  held  made  free  forever.  The  franchise  was  enlarged ;  and  except 
in  the  single  State  of  New  York,  without  distinction  of  race.  Legislation  could  not 
make  all  men  equal  in  talents,  but  it  could  give  all  an  equal  opportunity  to  cultivate 
whatever  God  had  been  pleased  to  bestow,  and  therefore  free  schools  were  established. 
It  could  not  make  all  men  equal  in  wealth,  but  it  could  give  all  an  equal  chance  to 
acquire  it;  and  so  imprisonment  for  debt  was  abolished,  exemptions  from  execution 
allowed,  and  the  laws  of  inheritance  equalized.  These  great  advances  toward  the 
equalization  of  governmental  advantages  were  not  secured  without  resistance.  There 
were  conservatives  in  those  days  as  well  as  in  ours.  They  saw  ruin  in  every  progressive 
step.  The  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade  would  deprive  the  poor  African  heatheu  of  a 
chance  to  hear  the  gospel  and  save  his  soul.  The  dedication  of  the  territories  to 
freedom  was  sectional  and  unconstitutional.  Non-imprisonment  for  debt  aud  exemption 


2 


from  execution  would  both  defraud  the  creditor  and  destroy  the  credit  of  the  debtor. 
Free  schools  would  burden  the  thrifty  with  taxes  to  educate  the  children  of  idlers.  The 
enlargement  of  the  franchise  would  be  its  degradation.  But  in  spite  of  conservatism 
and  its  evil  prophecy,  the  country  improved,  and  what  is  far  more  important,  mankind 
improved.  But  conservatism  did  not  surrender;  it  never  does  surrender.  The 
“progressive  Republican  party”  becoming  in  time  divided  into  several  parties  upon 
temporary  questions,  and  losing  its  distinctive  name  and  organization,  conservatism 
allied  itself  with  the  slave  power,  and  obtained  for  the  time  the  mastery  over  the  several 
divisions.  Immediately  the  breaks  are  whistled  down  ;  all  progress  stops.  It  is  now 
found  out  that  the  great  declaration  of  our  fathers  for  equal  political  rights  was  “  a 
glittering  generality,”  “a  rhetorical  flourish,”  “an  unmeaning  abstraction.”  It  is 
now  found  out  that  political  distinctions  are  necessary ;  that  political  equality  is  a 
degrading  level ;  that  the  law  should  assign  duties  to  one  class  and  privileges  to  another. 
The  revival  of  this  old  doctrine  was  not  received  without  objection  among  the  disbanded 
progressives.  Small  dissenting  parties  began  to  spring  up.  The  abolitionists,  the 
equal  rights  party,  the  free  Democracy,  barnburners,  free  soilers,  Benton  Democrats, 
and  others  which  escape  my  memory  as  I  speak,  from  time  to  time  and  in  various 
States  attracted  the  attention  of  the  public. 

They  were  numerous  enough  to  exhibit  the  deep  discontent  of  thinking,  progressive 
men,  but  too  feeble  to  resist  the  retrograde  movement  inaugurated  by  the  allied  powers — 
conservatism  and  slavery.  In  1856  representatives  of  these  various  organizations,  or 
rather  of  the  sentiments  indicated  by  them,  met  in  Philadelphia,  and  then  and  there, 
in  the  old  State  House,  in  which  the  theory  of  political  equality  had  been  first  pro¬ 
claimed,  formed  a  national  party,  pledged  to  take  up  the  principles  and  carry  forward 
the  work  of  the  fathers.  They  took  the  name  which  had  been  honored  by  the  advocates 
of  equal  rights  in  the  better  days  of  the  Republic.  The  friends  of  freedom  and  equality 
all  over  the  country  began  to  gather  into  this  new  organization,  while  the  advocates  of 
privilege,  the  conservatives,  the  anti-progressives  and  the  backgoers  squatted  at  the 
feet  of  the  slave  power  and  assumed  the  misleading  name  of  Democracy.  These  Phil¬ 
adelphia  conventionists  assumed  the  name  and  reaffirmed  the  doctrine  of  the  first 
Republican  party,  to  wit:  That  “  all  men  are  created  equal,”  but  like  that  party  they 
did  not  expect  to  secure  to  all  men  their  equal  rights  at  once.  Centuries  of  vested 
wrongs  still  stood  in  the  way.  Reasserting  the  principles,  holding  fast  to  the  liberties 
already  acquired,  they  only  proposed  to  move  forward  slowly,  securing, to  the  unprivi¬ 
leged  classes,  act  by  act  and  measure  by  measure,  as  time  and  opportunity  should 
permit,  greater  influence  and  advantage  in  the  Government,  until,  in  the  course  of  time, 
in  the  distant  future,  the  world  should  behold  a  great  nation  in  which  every  citizen, 
without  exception  pr  distinction,  had  secured  to  him  his  equal  right  to  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness — a  nation  with  no  ignorant,  no  poor,  no  enslaved,  no  degraded 
class. 

It  is  now  twelve  years  since  this  party  was  organized,  and  I  submit  that  the  history 
of  the  country  proves  that  it  has  held  steadily  to  its  declared  purpose.  To  give  every 
child  an  equal  chance  of  education,  it  has  advocated  and  legislated,  both  in  the  States 
and  Territories  and  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  favor  of  free  schools.  To  give  every 
man  an  equal  chance  to  acquire  property,  the  old  Republican  party,  as  I  said  before, 
abolished  imprisonment  for  debt,  and  made  the  necessaries  of  life  exempt  from  execution. 
Following  in  these  footsteps,  the  new  Republican  party,  in  the  first  year  of  its  national 
triumph,  secured  to  every  landless  man  a  one-hundred-and-sixty-acre  farm  without 
money  and  without  price ;  and  in  the  further  practice  of  the  same  principle  only  last 
year  it  released  the  honest  but  broken  debtor  from  the  further  pursuit  of  unrelenting 
credit.  By  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  slavery  in  sixteen  States,  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  and  in  all  the  vast  Territories  of  the  country  has  been  abolished,  and  its 
restoration  made  impossible  forever.  We  have  many  bright  pages  in  our  short  history 
— I  trust  we  are  to  have  many  more — but  the  page  that  records  this  brief  amendment 
will  be  the  brightest  of  them  all.  The  franchise,  which  lifts  up  the  humble,  protects 
the  weak,  educates  the  ignorant,  and  endows  the  poor,  the  synonym  of  liberty  and  self- 
respect,  has  from  time  to  time  been  greatly  enlarged.  Under  Republican  legislation,  the 
volunteer  soldier  retains  his  privilege  and  sends  home  his  vote.  One  year’s  service  to 


the  country  endows  the  alien  with  the  ballot.  In  twelve  States,  in  all  the  Territories, 
and  iu  the  District  of  Columbia,  the  franchise  has  been  extended  to  all  and  without 
distinction  of  race,  and  the  whole  tendency  of  Republican  debate  and  legislation  has 
been  toward  an  enlargement  of  the  franchise  without  restriction  except  for  crime. 

All  these  measures  look  in  one  direction,  and  lead  only  to  one  result.  They 
enlarge  the  rights,  privileges,  and  opportunities  of  all  the  people,  and  subordinate  the 
laws  to  the  popular  will.  That  is  not  despotism,  but  freedom.  These  measures  may 
all  be  wrong,  but  if  so,  it  is  because  the  theory  of  popular  government  is  wrong.  I 
have  a  right,  therefore,  to  conclude  that  the  charge  of  despotic  tendency  preferred 
against  the  Republican  party  is  entirely  without  foundation. 

It  may  be  said  that  two  of  these  measures — namely,  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves 
in  all  the  States,  and  their  enfranchisement  in  the  eleven  rebel  States — have  been  too 
much  hurried.  The  Republican  party  did  not  in  the  beginning  intend  to  move  so 
rapidly.  Emancipation,  which  would  withdraw  from  the  enemy  and  add  to  us  four 
million  population,  became  a  military  necessity.  The  great  purpose  of  the  rebellion 
was  to  withdraw  slavery  from  the  wasting  influence  of  the  nineteenth  century ;  to 
build  it  around  with  a  new  nationality,  and  wall  out  the  light  and  warmth  of  a  Chris¬ 
tian  age.  That  motive  could  only  be  destroyed  by  the  destruction  of  slavery  itself, 
and  we  struck  it  a  hurried  but  fatal  blow.  Premature  enfranchisement,  if  premature 
it  is,  has  been  forced  upon  us  for  a  similar  reason.  The  returning  rebels  demanded 
two  sets  of  Congressmen,  all  their  own,  and  thirty-three  more  for  the  blacks,  both  sets 
to  be  elected  exclusively  by  themselves.  Under  the  amended  Constitution  the  claim 
was  legal.  But  such  double  power  would  enable  them  to  vote  down  your  soldiers’ 
pensions,  repudiate  your  plighted  honor,  force  upon  you  the  payment  for  emancipated 
slaves,  and  finally  to  master  and  redivide  the  Union.  To  break  the  strength  of  this 
disunion  element,  we  put  the  ballot  in  the  hands  of  the  loyal  black  man.  Our  own 
safety  and  the  safety  of  the  Union  demanded  it,  but  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  theory 
of  our  Government,  and  if  a  little  premature,  time  will  soon  overtake  it. 

But  you  have  passed  laws  restraining  the  power  of  the  President ;  where  is  the 
despotism  of  that?  A  despotic  government  is  a  one-man  government — all  executive. 
How  can  restraints  upon  that  one-man  power  be  also  despotic  ?  They  might  be  consid¬ 
ered  too  Republican,  too  Democratic,  but  to  call  them  despotic  involves  a  contra¬ 
diction.  What  are  the  facts?  During  the  war  the  President  was  clothed  with 
extraordinary  powers.  The  Democrats  complained.  They  apprehended  that  these 
powers  might  be  used  to  destroy  the  liberties  of  the  people.  At  length  the  war  was 
over,  Mr.  Johnson  had  come  to  be  President,  but  the  extraordinary  powers  were  still 
attached  to  the  Executive  office.  They  were  no  longer  needed,  but  were  as  dangerous 
as  ever.  Mr.  Johnson  himself  said,  in  his  celebrated  East  Room  speech,  that  he 
possessed  power  enough  to  make  himself  dictator.  A  great  many  people  thought  he 
intended  to  try  it.  Then  Congress  began  to  do  what  the  Democrats  claimed  they 
should  have  done  long  before — confine  the  Executive  power  to  its  old  peace  limits. 
Then  they  complain  again.  To  confer  these  powers  was  despotic;  to  recall  them  is 
despotic.  One  or  the  other  complaint  is  unfounded.  We  could  not  be  wrong  each 
time.  We  were  really  right  each  time.  It  was  proper  that  the  President  should  have 
large  powers  to  suppress  the  rebellion,  and  that  these  powers  should  be  surrendered 
after  the  necessity  was  passed. 

But  your  mode  of  reconstructing  the  South  is  despotic !  Not  so  much  so  as 
yours,  provided  you  adopt  the  President’s  plan;  and  you  have  adopted  it.  The  Presi¬ 
dent  put  the  people  of  the  South  under  military  rule ;  Congress  did  not.  We  did  not 
order  the  army  there.  We  did  not  keep  it  there.  We  took  no  action  till  March  o, 
1867.  Up  to  that  time  the  President  had  his  own  way,  and  all  this  time  he  governed 
the  South  by  the  army.  Till  then  his  despotic  will  was  law.  He  got  up  conventions. 
He  selected  the  voters.  He  shaped  the  constitutions  and  declared  them  adopted.  He 
allowed  no  popular  vote.  That  was  his  plan.  It  was  your  plan.  This  was  real  despo¬ 
tism — unrestrained  one-man  military  power.  Our  plan  was  only  a  restraint  upon  yours. 
We  did  not  order  the  army  away,  to  be  sure ;  but  we  put  it  under  the  control  of  law. 
We  did  not  prohibit  the  assembling  of  conventions,  but  released  them  from  the  dictation 
of  the  President.  We  did  not  forbid  constitutions  to  be  framed,  but  required  their 


4 


submission  to  the  people,  Your  plan  was  to  originate  State  governments  in  accordance 
witli  the  President’s  will — ours  in  accordance  with  established  law. 

But  you  are  making  encroachments  upon  the  Supreme  Court !  A  bill  which 
requires  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Judges  to  declare  a  statute  of  the  United 
States  void  was  proposed,  but  never  became  a  law.  Suppose  it  had — what  despotism 
is  there  in  that ?  Who  compose  the  Supreme  Court?  Usually  nine  Judges.  They 
are  appointed  by  the  President,  and  hold  their  offices  for  life.  The  people  can  change 
their  Representatives  once  in  two  years,  their  President  once  in  four,  and  their  Sena¬ 
tors  once  in  six;  but  the  Judges  of  this  Court  are  always  beyond  their  reach.  This  is 
the  only  anti-republican,  aristocratic,  despotic  feature  in  our  Government.  While 
these  Judges  are  entirely  above  the  influence  of  the  people,  they  are  not  above  the 
common  passions  and  infirmities  of  mankind.  They  are  still  politicians,  as  much  so  as 
Senators  and  Representatives,  though  not  progressive.  They  hold  to  whatever  was 
uppermost  when  they  were  lifted  out  of  politics  to  the  bench.  You  can  tell  the  poli¬ 
tics  of  a  Judge  b}r  the  date  of  his  commission,  and  the  date  of  his  commission  by  his 
politics.  They  crystallize  in  the  sentiments  of  their  day  and  are  changeless  ever  after. 
Some  of  them  cannot  even  now  realize  that  there  has  been  a  great  war ;  and  are  trying 
to  decide  that  a  constable  and  grand  jury  were  equal  to  the  “late  political  disorder.” 
Some  cannot  realize  that  the  slave  power  has  been  legally  dethroned ;  and  are  trying 
to  retain  in  the  legislation  of  the  country  at  least  a  few  memorial  shreds  of  the  odious 
institution.  I  have  the  best  authority  for  saying  that  a  majority  of  these  judges  have 
made  up  their  minds  that  the  “  legal  tender”  law  is  unconstitutional,  and  will  so  decide 
in  the  cases  now  pending  in  their  court.  I  mention  this  fact,  not  for  present  criticism, 
but  as  an  illustration  of  the  vast  power  of  these  nine  men  over  the  fortunes  of  the 
people.  Is  a  law  that  requires  the  agreement  of  one  or  two  more  judges  before  they  make 
a  decision  that  will  ruin  all  the  debtors  of  the  country  by  requiring  them  to  pay  their 
debts  in  gold,  despotic  ?  Every  debtor  in  the  country  who  now  thinks  such  a  law  would 
be  despotic  will  have  reason  to  change  his  mind  before  he  is  two  years  older. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  our  legislation  tends  to  centralization  of  power  in  the  General 
Government,  and  that  centralization  tends  to  despotism.  I  deny  it.  We  have  endeav¬ 
ored  to  preserve  the  union  of  the  States,  because  individual  liberty  can  be  best  secured 
in  a  single  republic.  The  Republic  was  divided  before  we  came  to  power.  On  the 
fourth  of  March,  1861,  Mr.  Buchanan  surrendered  to  Mr.  Lincoln  the  northern  half, 
having  surrendered  the  southern  half  to  Jefferson  Davis  nearly  a  month  before.  We 
found  the  Union  dismembered,  and  we  have  restored  it.  We  found  it  with  slavery,  the 
chief  incentive  to  disunion,  and  we  broke  the  chains  of  four  million  bondsmen.  We  found 
an  hundred  kinds  of  money  that  wrnuld  not  pass  as  many  miles  from  home,  and  we  have 
reduced  them  to  one  uniform  system  of  equal  value  all  over  the  land.  We  found  the 
Pacific  States  separated  from  the  East  by  a  vast  unoccupied  country,  and  growing  up 
into  isolated  nationality,  and  we  have  stretched  out  great  lines  of  railway  to  secure  their 
commerce  and  hold  their  interests  and  affections  in  the  Union.  We  found  commerce 
between  the  States  everywhere  burdened  and  obstructed  by  local  and  illiberal  State 
legislation,  and  we  have  undertaken  some  measures  of  relief.  These  enterprises, 
undertaken  to  preserve  the  harmony  of  the  States  and  secure  the  growth  and  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  whole  country,  are  mistaken  by  small  politicians  for  acts  of  centralization. 

In  addition  to  carrying  on  a  four-year  war  for  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion,  all 
these  beneficent  and  permanent  reforms  have  been  secured  during  the  short  life  of  the 
Republican  party.  Take  as  many  years  of  Democratic  administration  prior  to  that  and 
tell  me  what  record  you  have  left  to  awaken  the  gratitude  or  pride  of  the  people. 
There  stands  the  gallows  upon  which  they  immolated  old  John  Brown,  a  brave  but 
erring  enthusiast  of  human  freedom ;  but  its  victim  is  more  honored  to-day  than  its 
cruel  architects.  Just  beyond  is  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  rendered  in  violation  of  pre¬ 
cedent,  law,  and  Constitution  for  the  brutalization  of  four  million  Christian  people.  It 
has  no  friends  now.  Further  on  you  behold  the  Missouri  compromise — our  fathers’ 
bond  of  Union — the  peace  offering  of  its  day,  repudiated,  broken,  and  trampled  under 
foot  that  the  inhumanity  of  the  hour  might  be  without  restraint.  Standing  around  it, 
as  fit  witnesses  of  the  wrong,  are  the  “border  ruffian  war,”  the  “  Lecompton  villainy,” 
and  the  small  tyrannies  of  Pierce  and  Buchanan.  Still  further  down  this  dreary 


5 


history  stands  the  “fugitive  slave  law,”  to  which  every  Democratic  knee  was  wont  to 
bow.  Its  manacles  are  broken  now.  Its  bloodhounds  no  longer  bay  upon  the  track  of 
its  victims.  No  garlands  crown  its  ugly  brow.  It  has  no  worshippers,  no  admirers,  no 
defenders,  no  apologists  even.  All  have  sneaked  away.  These  arc  the  monuments  of 
three  administrations.  During  all  these  weary  years  nothing  was  done  by  the  pre¬ 
dominant  party  to  elevate  aud  honor  labor,  to  educate  the  poor,  to  lift  up  the  fallen,  to 
endow  the  landless,  or  to  soften  the  cruelties  of  bondage.  You  cannot  point  to  a  single 
act  that  anybody  will  celebrate,  that  anybody  will  honor,  that  anybody  will  remember 
even  except  with  regret  or  shame. 

The  doctrine  of  political  equality  forms  the  great  “  divide”  between  parties  now 
as  heretofore.  The  conservative  or  anti-progressive  element,  always  beaten,  except 
when  allied  with  the  slave  power,  takes  heart  from  the  complication  of  public  affairs 
and  enters  the  arena  with  new  disguises.  The  remnant  of  the  slave  aristocracy  rallies  to 
its  standard.  The  foiled  secessionists  extend  their  crimson  hands  both  to  aid  aud  to  be 
aided.  A  great  church,  believing  that  the  mass  of  mankind  should  be  guided  rather 
than  educated,  leads  its  vast  flock  where  otherwise  we  would  least  expect  it,  into  the 
support  of  anti-republican  distinctions.  Many  submit  to  the  theory  which  degrades 
them  because  it  degrades  others  more  than  themselves.  And  many  mistake  license  to 
the  vicious  for  liberty  to  mankind.  It  is  the  old  combination,  so  often  beaten.  There 
may  be  a  few  recruits  ;  some  few  who  have  attained  senatorial  and  judicial  honors  by 
the  advocacy  of  equal  rights,  through  the  natural  selfishness  of  the  human  heart,  have 
come  to  believe  in  rank  since  they  have  reached  the  highest.  A  few  descendants  of 
eminent  men,  unable  by  personal  merit  to  command  the  position  of  their  fathers,  reject 
their  fathers’  doctrine.  John  Quincy  Adams  was  a  progressive  Republican,  and  his 
grandson  is  a  conservative.  The  descendant  claims  by  law  what  the  ancestor  acquired 
by  desert.  To  these  add  a  few  natural  grumblers,  and  you  have  the  present  Democratic- 
conservative-sorehead-rebel  party. 

Such  elements  can  bo  held  together  in  a  party  of  opposition,  because  a  minority 
party  need  have  no  affirmative  policy.  They  bring  forward  no  measures  of  their  own. 
It  is  their  business  to  hold  back,  to  oppose,  to  criticise,  to  denounce,  to  threaten,  not  to 
originate,  to  propose,  to  decide,  or  to  act.  To  avoid  present  accountability  for  the  past 
they  even  condemn  their  own  history  and  acquiesce  in  the  defeat  of  their  own  measures. 
They  were  opposed  to  the  “  Lecompton  fraud”  and  “border  ruffian  war” — after  Kansas 
became  a  free  State.  They  approved  the  homestead  law — after  it  was  enacted.  They  do 
not  worship  the  fugitive  slave  law — after  it  is  repealed.  They  arc  in  favor  of  the  war — 
after  it  is  over.  They  are  opposed  to  slavery — after  it  is  abolished.  They  will  doubtless 
be  opposed  to  repudiation — after  the  debt  is  paid,  and  in  favor  of  universal  suffrage — after 
everybody  can  vote.  But  they  attack  whatever  is  proposed  by  others,  whatever  is 
uppermost  for  the  time  being.  During  the  last  seven  years  they  have  done  nothing 
but  scold.  Scolding  is  their  vocation  ;  their  sovereign  remedy  for  all  public  ills. 

They  scolded  the  Union  party  when  Buchanan  divided  the  Republic,  and  scolded 
harder  when  we  attempted  to  restore  it.  If  the  army  lacked  men  they  would  scold. 
If  a  draft  was  ordered  to  fill  it,  they  would  scold.  If  the  Treasury  was  empty  they 
would  scold.  If  taxes  were  levied  they  would  scold.  If  a  loan  was  attempted  they 
would  scold.  If  a  battle  was  lost  they  would  scold  about  mismanagement.  If  it  was 
won  about  subjugating  the  South.  They  scolded  terribly  when  $300  would  commute 
the  draft,  and  worse  when  the  law  was  repealed.  They  scolded  when  greenbacks  were 
issued,  and  scolded  again  when  the  issue  was  stopped.  They  scold  when  the  rebel 
States  are  kept  out,  and  scold  when  they  are  brought  in. 

While  this  party  remains  in  the  minority  scolding  may  answer  their  purpose.  It 
may  even  enlarge  their  numbers  by  the  addition  of  malcontents  and  impracticable  men. 
But  if  they  carry  the  elections  next  fall  they  must  become  actors  instead  of  critics. 
What  will  they  then  do?  If  they  have  been  honest  in  their  opposition  to  Republican 
measures  they  must  attempt  to  undo  them  all.  They  were  opposed  to  coercion  ;  they 
must,  therefore,  restore  the  confederacy  and  treat  for  terms  of  separation.  They  were 
opposed  to  emancipation ;  they  must  reestablish  slavery.  They  were  opposed  to  the 
amendment  of  the  Constitution,  which  forbids  payment  for  emancipated  slaves  and  the 
assumption  of  rebel  debts ;  they  must,  therefore,  repeal  it.  They  were  opposed  to  tho 


6 


repeal  of  the  fugitive-slave  law ;  they  must  therefore  reenact  it.  They  opposed  the 
readmission  of  *he  eight  reconstructed  rebel  States;,  they  must  therefore  turn  them  out. 
Their  candidate  for  Vice  President  says  they  will,  and  that  by  revolution  if  they  cannot 
by  law.  They  were  opposed  to  the  enfranchisement  of  the  colored  people  in  the  rebel 
States;  they  must  therefore  disfranchise  them  and  leave  the  rebel  power  without  check 
or  division.  They  opposed  the  enfranchisement  of  the  citizen  soldiers,  and  they  must 
be  disfranchised  also.  It  may  be  said  they  connot  accomplish  all  this.  That  is  true, 
but  they  can  try  it.  They  must  try  it,  because  if  they  do  not  it  is  a  confession  that 
they  have  all  along  been  wrong,  and  we  have  all  along  been  right,  which  is  a  confession 
that  they  ought  to  be  defeated  at  the  polls.  They  carried  the  Legislature  of  Ohio  last 
fall,  and  immediately  began  the  work  of  demolition.  Their  first  attack  was  on  the 
franchise.  They  at  once  withdrew  from  the  soldier,  the  student,  and  the  quadroon, 
whom  they  classed  and  proscribed  together,  the  right  to  vote.  Ohio  had  given  her 
consent  to  the  constitutional  amendment,  which  makes  the  loyal  States  equal  in  repre¬ 
sentation  in  the  Federal  Government  to  the  rebel  States,  and  prohibits  payment  for 
slaves  and  the  assumption  of  rebel  debts,  but  this  Legislature  revoked  it.  Suppose 
they  fail  in  their  efforts,  how  is  the  country  to  be  benefited  by  a  four  years’  struggle 
over  it?  If  they  succeed,  the  old  slave  aristocracy  becomes  again  the  masters  of  the 
country.  The  defeated  rebels  become  the  political  victors.  Hampton  and  Forrest  and 
Preston  will  be  the  honored  soldiers  at  Washington,  as  they  were  in  the  New  York 
convention,  and  Grant  and  Sherman  and  Sheridan  will  be  discharged  on  parole.  It 
is  said  they  will  not  carry  matters  so  far;  the  northern  wing  of  the  party  will  moderate 
and  restrain  the  insolence  of  the  rebel  wing.  So  we  were  told  when  Pierce  and  Buchanan 
were  candidates,  but  after  the  election  we  soon  found  that  the  southern  Democrats  con¬ 
trolled  the  northern.  Whether  the  northern  Democrats  design  it  or  not,  it  will  be  so  again. 

But  it  is  said  this  party  can  get  us  out  of  all  financial  trouble.  The  southern 
wing  got  us  into  it,  but  how  can  they  get  us  out  ?  Will  they  pay  it?  They  ought  to 
do  so,  but  they  will  not,  and  I  suppose  they  cannot.  They  pay  no  taxes.  They  say 
they  have  nothing  to  pay  with.  They  could  do  nothing,  then,  but  tax  us  and  dispose 
of  our  money.  Why  should  they  be  selected  for  that  office?  When  have  they  shown 
any  financial  ability  superior  to  northern  men  ?  They  run  the  confederacy  four  years 
and  two  months,  and  so  far  from  developing  financial  ability  they  developed  a  great 
lack  of  it.  Their  only  schemes  were  forced  loans,  to  be  paid  out  of  taxes  on  the  loans 
themselves.  Their  currency  became  so  worthless  that  they  were  forced  to  collect  taxes 
in  kind.  They  developed  great  military  ability,  I  concede,  but  as  financiers  they  were 
total  failures.  It  was  always  so.  Before  the  war  they  borrowed  from  the  North  the 
money  to  improve  their  estates,  build  their  railroads  and  public  works,  and  it  has  been 
mostly  paid  in  confiscation  and  bankruptcy.  They  might  double  your  debt  by  adding 
theirs  to  it,  but  how  would  they,  or  could  they,  discharge  it,  except  by  repudiation  ? 

What  could  the  northern  wing  of  the  party  do?  They  have  had  the  Administra¬ 
tion  and  run  the  Treasury  Department  for  the  last  three  years.  The  whiskey  tax  that 
ought  to  yield  $90,000,000  per  year  has,  under  their  management,  yielded  less  than 
fourteen  million  dollars.  They  are  in  favor  of  free  trade,  so  they  would  get  nothing 
from  customs.  The  internal  taxes  are  now  nearly  all  collected  from  whiskey,  tobacco, 
banks,  and  incomes.  Could  they  find  any  better  sources  of  revenue  ?  Would  they 
take  the  tax  from  whiskey  and  put  it  on  bread  ?  From  tobacco  and  put  it  on  coffee  ? 
From  incomes  and  put  it  on  labor  ?  Or  would  they  abolish  taxes  altogether  ?  IIow, 
then,  could  they  relieve  U3  of  debt?  No  way,  sir,  except  by  following  their  southern 
wing  into  repudiation.  That  would  be  an  expensive  payment.  It  implies  disgrace 
abroad,  and  distress,  revolution,  and  anarchy  at  home.  I  have  always  thought  the 
liberties  of  this  country  could  not  survive  a  repudiation  of  its  debt.  In  my  judgment 
it  would  produce  a  convulsion,  which  would  end  in  the  establishment  of  a  less  popular 
form  of  government. 

But  it  is  said,  again,  they  could  tax  the  bonds.  Very  well.  But  why  make 
that  a  party  question  any  more  than  taxing  whiskey  or  incomes  ?  If  all  the  bonds  were 
taxed,  including  those  held  abroad,  at  the  rate  proposed,  that  is,  ten  per  cent,  upon 
the  interest  in  addition  to  the  five  per  cent,  already  collected,  we  could  only  realize 
from  this  source  $12,000,000.  Compared  with  our  other  sources  of  revenue,  this  is  a 


I 


7 

small  sum.  Why  surrender  the  Government,  with  all  its  financial,  military,  and 
political  interests  to  those  who  but  three  years  ago  were  in  arms  to  destroy  it  altogether, 
in  order  to  secure  so  small  a  modification  of  the  tax  law  ?  If  the  people  think  it  best, 
upon  full  consideration,  to  levy  this  tax,  can  they  not  so  instruct  their  Representatives 
in  the  several  districts  ?  If  General  Grant  is  elected  so  us  to  give  confidence  in  the 
stability  of  the  Government  and  the  continued  peace  of  the  country,  we  can  exchange 
our  bonds  for  a  long  bond,  bearing  from  one  to  two  per  cent,  less  interest.  This  would 
save  to  the  country  from  twenty  to  thirty  million  dollars  per  year  instead  of  $12,000,- 
000.  We  would  not  only  realize  in  this  way  more  than  as  much  again  money,  but 
avoid  the  charge  of  incipient  repudiation.  Why  has  that  not  been  done  already? 

If  you  can  tell  me  why  God,  in  his  providence,  has  seen  fit  to  afflict  this  country 
with  such  a  President  as  Andrew  Johnson,  I  can  answer  the  question.  For  three 
years  he  has  been  sitting  there,  an  obstruction  to  all  proper  legislation  and  administra¬ 
tion.  If  we  propose  a  new  bond,  with  low  interest,  he  calls  before  him  the  corre¬ 
spondent  of  the  London  Times ,  and  fills  him  with  apprehensions  of  repudiation,  to  be 
scattered  all  over  Europe.  If  we  put  a  taxon  whiskey,  which,  if  honestly  collected, 
would  relieve  us  of  all  other  internal  taxes,  he  is  careful  to  see  that  it  never  goes  to 
the  Treasury.  He  counsels  with  the  bitterest  opponents  of  the  war,  and  plots  with  the 
bitterest  rebels.  Their  common  purpose  seems  to  be  to  keep  the  country  distracted ; 
to  defeat  the  reconstruction  of  the  South ;  to  advise,  prompt,  and  aid  resistance ;  to 
encourage  mobs  and  murders  to  fulfil  their  prophetic  war  of  races ;  to  keep  the  finances 
unsettled  and  business  men  in  doubt ;  to  worry  the  men  who  trusted  the  Government 
when  they  would  not,  and  make  them  unpopular  with  the  people  ;  to  magnify  the 
burdens  of  taxation,  and  thus  confuse  the  judgment  and  tire  the  patience  of  the  people. 
The  more  distress,  real  or  imaginary,  they  can  produce  in  the  country,  the  greater  will 
be  their  chances  of  political  success. 

They  make  the  trouble,  and  hold  the  Republicans  responsible  for  it.  With  Johnson 
controlling  the  Treasury  and  all  the  Executive  Departments  we  can  do  nothing.  He 
can,  and  will,  and  does  thwart  all  our  efforts.  If  the  Government  now  goes  into  the 
hands  of  the  Southern  rebels  with  only  such  restraints  as  their  Northern  allies  choose 
to  impose,  capitalists  will  have  no  confidence  in  the  maintenance  of  any  new  contract, 
and  will  make  none. 

But  it  is  said,  again,  that  this  party  would  pay  off  the  bonds  in  greenbacks  at  once, 
and  have  done  with  interest.  At  present  we  have  no  surplus  of  greenbacks  to  pay 
with,  and  unless  taxation  is  very  much  increased  we  will  not  have  for  several  years  to 
come.  Whether  the  bonds  shall  be  paid  in  greenbacks  or  gold  is  a  question  for  the 
future.  It  is  not  a  question  for  this  year  or  next.  It  may  never  be  a  question. 
Before  we  will  be  able  to  pay  at  all,  or  can  be  called  on  to  pay,  gold  and  greenbacks 
may  and  probably  will  be  of  equal  value.  It  may  become  a  troublesome  question  at 
some  future  day;  but  why  anticipate  the  trouble?  Do  not  the  times  furnish  trouble 
enough  without  this  ? 

Yes ;  but  the  Democrats  would  print  greenbacks  enough  to  pay  off  the  bonds. 
That  would  give  us  $2,500,000,000  of  currency  at  least;  if  the  bank  issue  was  still 
outstanding,  $2,800,000,000.  During  the  war  the  Democrats  declared  that  in  time 
it  would  take  a  cord  of  greenbacks  to  pay  for  a  cord  of  wood.  They  would  thus  fulfil 
their  own  prophecy.  Such  a  course  would  wipe  out  the  bonds ;  but  the  public  credi¬ 
tors  would  not  be  the  only  sufferers.  It  would  discharge  all  private  debts  as  well. 
But,  like  the  confederate  currency,  it  would  have  little  value  except  to  pay  debts,  and 
after  that  nobody  would  take  it.  A  debtor  might  sell  a  horse  for  enough  to  pay  for  a 
farm  he  purchased  on  credit  the  year  before;  but  there  the  traffic  would  end;  all  trade 
would  stop ;  all  manufactures  would  stop ;  the  poor  would  have  no  employment  and 
property  command  no  price.  But,  after  all,  it  might  not  effect  a  discharge  of  debts 
either  public  or  private.  Suppose  the  debtors  should  refuse  to  take  it,  and  the 
Supreme  Court  should  decide  the  law  unconstitutional  and  void.  That  would  bring 
everybody  to  specie  payments  at  once.  It  is  well  understood  that  this  eourt  will  ulti¬ 
mately  render  such  a  decision  on  the  present  legal-tender-law.  They  only  wait  a 
favorable  time.  Such  an  avalanche  of  irredeemable  paper  might  force  the  decision 
at  once. 


8 


As  ^roof  of  the  financial  ability  of  this  party,  we  are  reminded  that  in  1861  they 
left  the  country  free  from  debt,  and  that  under  our  administration  a  debt  of  $2,500,000,000 
has  been  created.  The  statement  is  not  quite  true.  They  left  the  country  in  debt 
nearly  one  hundred  million  dollars  in  time  of  peace,  and  its  credit  so  low  that  Howell 
Cobb,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  informed  Congress  in  December,  1860,  that  he 
was  unable,  after  repeated  efforts,  to  borrow  the  little  sum  of  $10,000,000.  It  is  true, 
we  have  a  jarge  debt  now;  but  who  caused  it?  It  will  be  admitted  that  the  debt  was 
created  to  suppress  the  rebellion,  and  the  southern  wing  of  the  party  which  now  com¬ 
plains  of  it,  got  up  the  rebellion  to  divide  the  Union.  It  ought  also  to  be  admitted,  but 
I  suppose  wdl  not  be,  that  the  rebellion  was  prompted  and  encouraged  by  a  portion  ot 
the  northern  wing.  Upon  some  portion  of  the  Democratic  party,  as  at  present  organ¬ 
ized,  lies  the  whole  responsibility  of  this  rebellion.  Is  it  fair,  then,  to  hold  us  responsible 
for  a  debt  caused  by  the  misconduct  of  our  opponents  ? 

In  1863  there  was  a  great  anti-war  riot  in  New  York.  To  suppress  it  and  repair 
damages  cost  the  city  a  large  sum  of  money.  Suppose  these  rioters  and  their  sympa¬ 
thetic  friends  the  next  year  had  formed  a  party  and  nominated  a  ticket  to  contest  with 
the  old  officials  the  possession  of  the  city  government,  would  they  have  had  the  cheek 
to  urge  as  a  reason  for  the  change  that  the  debt  of  the  city  had  been  enlarged  the  year 
before  ?  During  the  war  the  beautiful  town  of  Chambersburg,  in  the  State  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  was  burned  by  the  rebels.  A  large  debt  was  created  to  rebuild  it.  Suppose 
these  incendiaries  had  settled  in  Chambersburg  after  the  war  was  over  and  had  finally 
been  placed'  on  the  Democratic  ticket  for  local  officers,  would  it  have  been  altogether 
modest  in  them  to  urge  the  people  to  select  them  because  the  old  officers  had  created 
this  debt  ?  If  a  discharged  cashier,  turning  thief  and  robbing  your  bank,  and  thus 
entailing  upon  it  a  heavy  debt,  should,  upon  his  return  from  the  penitentiary,  ask  to  be 
restored  to  his  old  place,  and  give  as  a  reason  that  your  bank  was  out  of  debt  when  he 
was  discharged,  and  a  large  debt  had  been  created  by  his  successor,  would  you  be 
fikely  to  restore  him  ?  And  yet  the  impudence  of  the  New  York  rioters,  the  Cham¬ 
bersburg  incendiaries,  and  the  discharged  cashier  would  not  be  greater  than  that  of  the 
late  rebels  and  their  northern  allies,  who  ask  to  be  restored  to  power  because  their  own 
misconduct  has  forced  the  contraction  of  a  large  debt. 

The  talk  about  relieving  the  country  of  its  obligations  means  repudiation  or  it  is  a 
deception.  They  cannot  levy  the  taxes  more  judiciously,  nor  collect  and  apply  them 
more  honestly  than  anybody  else.  Their  three  years  trial  under  Mr.  Johnson  has  not 
developed  any  superior  character  in  this  direction.  They  certainly  could  not  negotiate 
for  a  low  rate  of  interest  to  advantage.  Capitalists,  knowing  the  debt  will  always  be 
hateful  to  a  large  portion  of  their  party,  because  it  must  ever  remind  them  of  their 
folly  and  humiliation,  would  fear  to  trust  them. 

This  portion  of  their  party,  to  frighten  the  people  into  total  or  partial  repudiation, 
constantly  magnify  the  burden,  and  decry  the  ability  of  the  country  to  discharge  it. 
Why,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  amount  of  our  property  to-day  is  $22,000,000,000.  Every 
twelve  years  it  doubles.  Our  population  is  forty  millions,  and  doubles  every  twenty-five 
years.  The  increase  in  the  wealth  of  the  country,  as  shown  by  an  able  and  accurate 
mathematician,  would  pay  the  whole  debt  in  two  years.  In  twenty-five  years  from  this 
time  our  population  will  be  eighty  millions,  and  our  property  worth  $86,414,000,000. 
To  our  increased  wealth  and  population  the  whole  debt  would  be  no  more  than  one-fourth 
of  it  is  to  us.  If,  then,  they  mean  repudiation,  we  do  not  need  it  and  cannot  afford  it. 
If  in  any  other  respect  they  claim  financial  superiority,  it  is  unfounded  presumption. 

Aside  from  this  question  of  finance,  this  party  promise  nothing  except  to  fight 
over  and  fight  backward  the  political  battles  of  the  last  twelve  years.  Is  the  country 
prepared  to  embark  in  such  a  struggle  ?  Do  we  want  an  administration  which  will  not 
only  resist  all  further  progress,  as  Mr.  Johnson  has  done,  but  undertake  to  work  the 
country  back,  act  by  act,  and  measure  by  measure,  to  the  days  of  Pierce  and  Buchanan? 
Is  any  human  being  to  be  benefited  by  it?  Would  it  not  be  better  to  choose  an  admin¬ 
istration  which  will  not  only  hold  fast  to  the  liberty  and  privileges  already  secured  to 
the  people,  but,  as  time  and  opportunity  permit,  move  slowly  forward  on  the  great 
Republican  doctrine  of  equal  political  rights? 


Gibson  Brothers,  Pbinthbs,  Washington,  D.  C. 


